Review: ‘Vikings’ storms back for season 2

This is, you may have noticed, a very busy week for TV premieres, as the business unpaused itself in a big way the second the Olympics were over. February is now the new September, unless maybe January is the new September, which would make February the new January, and this is all so very confusing when all you want to know is when “Hannibal” is going to be back (that'd be tomorrow night at 10, and I'll have a review of the new season going up this afternoon).

With so many shows debuting or returning, there hasn't been time to write about them all – and I highly recommend both reading Fienberg's “Mixology” review and then never actually watching “Mixology” – but I at least wanted to acknowledge tonight's return of “Vikings.” (Season 2 premieres at 9 Eastern on History.) I liked the show quite a bit in its first season, and it continues to be strong as it opens its second. It's part of a recent trend of pulpy genre shows – like Cinemax's “Strike Back” and “Banshee”(*) – that understand exactly what they're about and try to present the best possible version of that.

(*) Recent “Banshee” episodes actually suggest the show is starting to aim higher artistically than just giving us the best fight scenes on television, and if I can ever find the time before the new season's over, I'm going to write more about that.

There is political intrigue on “Vikings,” and talk about their worship of Odin and the rest of the gods of Asgard, as compared to the Christians from England whom they like to pillage, and “Vikings” remains good enough at those things that you won't be checking your watch waiting for the next big action set piece. But when those set pieces come? Buckle up. Season 2 opens with a bit of a time jump (which the show already did a few times in season 1) that may make you feel like you missed an episode, but the goal is to jump straight into an epic battle scene between the forces of our hero Ragnar (Travis Fimmel) and his king (Donal Logue, now a series regular) and those led by Ragnar's gigantic brother Rollo (Clive Standen), and it is a humdinger.

Fimmel, Katheryn Winnick and the rest of the cast remain, like the show, better than the material probably needs to be a commercial success, and thus strong enough that “Vikings” remains a genuine pleasure rather than a guilty one. It ain't deep much of the time, but it does the job, and I'm glad it's back.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

The last episode of last season ruined the show for me. Rollo stabs his brother in the back and Ragnar betrays his wife. Hopefully they both die in the first fight and it can become the ‘Floki and Lagertha’ show.

By: scott

03.29.2014 @ 12:49 AM

the show is supposed to be based on a true story. The writers can not just change history to make the show feel good.

By: Kenneth

05.15.2014 @ 11:16 PM

Scott, the show plays fast and loose with chronology, the most glaring example of which is everyone referring to Charlemagne in the past tense: unless 20-odd years have passed in the show, Charlemagne is still kicking around. Plus, the historicity of Ragnar himself is debated, so I wouldn’t go so far as to talk about it being based on a ‘true story’; if anything, it’s a modern-day saga.

By: ides

02.27.2014 @ 5:48 PM

I thought the plot lulled at times, but it had a terrific look,a deeper take on religion than I could have expected, and an impressive dedication to showing the very dark side (to modern eyes) of their culture without judging it.

Looking forward to the new season.

By: bitchstolemyremote

02.27.2014 @ 11:12 PM

Agree completely – the collision of two religions delivered in an adult, non-judgemental way with really refreshing and gave the show some of its most poignant moments.

With that said, I’m excited for Loki.

By: VikingMetal

02.28.2014 @ 7:21 AM

What a phenomenal show and, I’ll say, one hell of an opening for season 2. Me and my girlfriend are so enraptured with not only the overrall plot and unique, grabbing characters but the historical accuracy most of all.im glad hollywood hasnt bombarded this show with stupid hype, all i got to say hell yeah Vikings!

By: Auburn beauty

03.01.2014 @ 4:42 AM

What a let down. After everything that Ragnar has put Lagertha through we only see a scene where Lagertha tells Ragnar that he has embarassed and humiliated her. Seriously!? Is that it? He really doesn’t even try to stop her. Oh but I guess he doesn’t have to try to hard his mistress is at home waiting for him……….his first wife and kids meant nothing to him. Sick of where I see this going.

Adding an hour back to my week!

By: Auburn Beauty

03.01.2014 @ 8:30 PM

Correction to my comment Lagertha said ‘insult and humiliate”.

By: Brent

03.19.2014 @ 12:46 PM

Well, they almost had to though. The “real” Ragnar Lodbrok was said to have had 3 wives, and his sons eventually become the great Viking leaders who head up the invasion of Britain.

By: Chesterfield

03.03.2014 @ 10:10 AM

Not REALLY sold on this. I think it feels anachronistic in a way that takes me out of the experience. Now, I’m not against anachronisms per se, but the difference between Vikings and other shows with an historical setting is just that it registered with me. I had the same problems with other Michael Hirst shows (Tudors and Camelot), so I think it’s actually just that his particular voice or view of history doesn’t gel with me. And I know there is tons of research being done, so it’s hard to put my finger on something specific.

By: Brent

03.19.2014 @ 12:55 PM

That’s kind of vague…I mean, there are some things to harp on. Like the way the government of the towns is shown as being mostly autocratic instead of democratic, etc. But I think there’s a lot of honesty in Vikings. Especially when it comes to the clash of cultures. I think that’s where this show shines brigher than many a big screen film. I’ll never forget when they landed and met that small band of Saxon warriors. Nobody understood each other (other than Ragnar) and everyone was nervous and then MELEE. That was brilliant.

By: Chesterfield

03.19.2014 @ 1:08 PM

Yeah, but wasn’t that the time when the Vikings fought EXACTLY like a phalanx of hoplites in ancient Greece? Which… yeah, that existed, and Vikings travelled and learned stuff, but… it doesn’t ring true with the type of warrior culture Sweden was at the time (I’m Swedish, just, putting that out there), which is a more barbaric type of warrior, more focused on individual prowess and heroism.

I’m not saying it’s historically inaccurate, because I haven’t got the history knowledge to back that up, but it FEELS wrong. Also, the tattooed, shaved heads? I know, Hirst says the Vikings were much cleaner and vainer than they’re given credit for, and that they spent time on their personal grooming, but that doesn’t look right.

Also, the look of the land is “Norway” and “Iceland”, while the story and characters say “Sweden”.

I know I was being vague. I had a hard time explaining why it didn’t gel. I still do. It’s just that it doesn’t feel right.

By: Brent

03.19.2014 @ 1:29 PM

Well, the skjaldborg (shield wall but you probably already know that) is a well-documented thing. The warrior culture is a big deal for the Vikings for sure, but at least in contemporary accounts a lot of that came into play with the berzerkers and with challenges for personal combat before a battle. I will admit that they get a little carried away with the skjaldborg though, opening it up at specific times and popping dudes up over the top to loose arrows.

I see what you mean, though: it’s just a stylistic choice, perhaps. What’s expected/ feels right vs. what is more historical, and maybe not what feels consistent according to our expectations.

Oh, and I rolled my eyes at the head tattoos too. Apparently there is at least ONE accounts of their wearing tattoos…but a lot o historians left it out, which seems conspicuous. It’s funny though because I feel like tattoos “feel” right but aren’t historical.

Great point about how clean they were too. They were much cleaner than the Saxons (who mocked their cleanliness). And while at least they don’t show the Vikings as super dirty (tired of that trope), the only ones we see regularly bathing are the Saxons.

I wish that more shows about the Vikings would talk more about Norway vs. Iceland vs. Sweden and the politics that would play into all of that, but I think that one just stems from it being an American show and we think “Vikings” (a misnomer anyway, as Im betting you know) = one word which must = one country/people.

I think I get what you mean though. It’s less about what’s correct (his son’s hair was a Saxon style as I recall, not a Norse one) and more about meshing with our perceptions about similar peoples/cultures. I get that. And its not a bad approach.

For myself, I appreciate the way the show sticks with what we know for the most part anyway. I feel like it actually tries pretty hard to get the big stuff right, and doesn’t overemphasize where they filled in the blanks.

By: Brent

03.19.2014 @ 1:31 PM

I do hate the Seidr/ Seer though. I don’t know much about those guys, but it seems like pure hollywood.

By: Chesterfield

03.19.2014 @ 2:16 PM

Well, I’m not a historian, so I’m not going to claim I know more than this very thoroughly researched TV show. I’m sure there are precedents and historical records for most, if not all, of what happens in the show. And I really, REALLY shouldn’t complain because I am very much enjoying the fact that we are getting a badass Viking show

I don’t wanna sound like this is something that upsets me greatly and like I find the historical accuracy of the show to be of paramount importance. I don’t, and it’s not. But you seem to know a lot about the subject, maybe you’re Scandinavian as well?

By: Chesterfield

03.19.2014 @ 2:22 PM

About the seer: they obviously have mystical powers, powers of foresight etc in the show, which rhymes extremely bad with the grounded approach it seems to take with everything else AND the fact that this is on the History Channel.

By: Brent

03.19.2014 @ 2:41 PM

Oh no, I’m no historian, and I myself am American. I’m just a big history geek, especially over the Vikings. I’ve taken a few classes, but I have no credentials, I just read a lot about the subject- like tha Sagas, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles (not ALL of either), etc.

Also I watch Metalocalypse, so I’m an expert on all things Metal (like Vikings!). Just kidding :) Really though, I’m no expert, just speaking to what I’ve read. But yeah I agree: a show about badass Vikings = awesome (almost no matter what lol)!!

You make a good point about the Seer, and what bothers me is they seem to make him bizarre just for its own sake. Like, they treat EVERY part of both religions pretty well, EXCEPT for that part. That one part it seems like they’re like “look how weird this STRANGE old religion was!” And it seems arbitrary…but that’s one part I’m pretty ignorant of, so I can’t be certain that it wasn’t like that…

By: Chesterfield

03.21.2014 @ 8:44 AM

@BRENT, I forgot to ask you if you read “The Long Ships” by Frans G. Bengtsson? It’s fiction, but it’s sort of the “quintessential viking story” over here and it’s a really great read. If you haven’t read it, you will almost certainly enjoy it.
The author was not exactly a historian, but his previous works included a very thorough biography of King Karl XII of Sweden, so he had a knack for historical research and TLS is supposedly very historically accurate (while it’s certainly a work of fiction and as such probably takes many liberties as well).

By: Brent

03.21.2014 @ 12:11 PM

@ Chesterfield,
I have not sir! But it sounds awesome! You can bet I’ve added it to my reading list for sure! Thanks for the recommendation, I really appreciate it! That was most thoughtful.

Speaking of Viking historical fiction, if you haven’t read Bernard Cornwell’s The Last Kingdom and the rest of The Saxon Stories (well…most of them are good), they’re really great. He fudges some things (but admits to them in his Historical Notes), but it never feels out of place. Very entertaining books, from the same guy who wrote the Sharpe series.

By: Chesterfield

03.21.2014 @ 1:10 PM

I’m happy to. Just… if you really hate it, don’t let me know. I hate screwing up recommendations.
There was one time, I told a friend of mine he had to watch Breaking bad, and he started out disliking it for a lot of reasons I thought were dumb and that made him like it even less and then he hated it. I did not enjoy that process.